Pitts wrote:I would say (and agree with the earlier suggestion) that Joe Thornton or Phil Kessel was the most recent example of a guy traded simply to send a message.

seriously?

Well, I remember when Thornton was traded, and I remember exactly the second the Bruins' brass snapped...there was less than a minute left in a game between the Bruins and Devils on November 29, 2005 (nationally televised I believe)...Thornton faced off against John Madden deep in the Boston end, Thornton lost it clean and it went right on the blade of Alexander Mogilny and he blew it right past Andrew Raycroft to win it for New Jersey. At that very second, the Bruins built the team around Patrice Bergeron and gave up on Joe Thornton. They didn't care much for Thornton's on-ice play in the playoffs and his off-ice regiment wasn't exactly the stuff captains were made of...

Is that a message? I don't know exactly. I'm not even sure exactly what that means. But that's what went down.

That scenario is a perfect example of a shake-up trade that would show other players that everyone has a role and either perform up to expectation, or get moved. Given an opportunity to prove to your team that their financial and time investment in you as their big game equalizer was a smart move, and you whiff at the chance. A total 'Get it done or we will find someone else who will' message.

I'm not entirely sure that TK is more valuable on the team than he is on the trade market. If he's not top 6(and its great if he's not), then his role can be replaced for less than half of what he makes. Under that belief, he's less valuable than a late round pick.

Pitts wrote:I would say (and agree with the earlier suggestion) that Joe Thornton or Phil Kessel was the most recent example of a guy traded simply to send a message.

seriously?

Well, I remember when Thornton was traded, and I remember exactly the second the Bruins' brass snapped...there was less than a minute left in a game between the Bruins and Devils on November 29, 2005 (nationally televised I believe)...Thornton faced off against John Madden deep in the Boston end, Thornton lost it clean and it went right on the blade of Alexander Mogilny and he blew it right past Andrew Raycroft to win it for New Jersey. At that very second, the Bruins built the team around Patrice Bergeron and gave up on Joe Thornton. They didn't care much for Thornton's on-ice play in the playoffs and his off-ice regiment wasn't exactly the stuff captains were made of...

Is that a message? I don't know exactly. I'm not even sure exactly what that means. But that's what went down.

That scenario is a perfect example of a shake-up trade that would show other players that everyone has a role and either perform up to expectation, or get moved. Given an opportunity to prove to your team that their financial and time investment in you as their big game equalizer was a smart move, and you whiff at the chance. A total 'Get it done or we will find someone else who will' message.

trading thornton wasn't a message. it was a functional trade to change leadership. i may be wrong, but weren't there some financial implications as well?

Pitts wrote:I would say (and agree with the earlier suggestion) that Joe Thornton or Phil Kessel was the most recent example of a guy traded simply to send a message.

seriously?

Well, I remember when Thornton was traded, and I remember exactly the second the Bruins' brass snapped...there was less than a minute left in a game between the Bruins and Devils on November 29, 2005 (nationally televised I believe)...Thornton faced off against John Madden deep in the Boston end, Thornton lost it clean and it went right on the blade of Alexander Mogilny and he blew it right past Andrew Raycroft to win it for New Jersey. At that very second, the Bruins built the team around Patrice Bergeron and gave up on Joe Thornton. They didn't care much for Thornton's on-ice play in the playoffs and his off-ice regiment wasn't exactly the stuff captains were made of...

Is that a message? I don't know exactly. I'm not even sure exactly what that means. But that's what went down.

That scenario is a perfect example of a shake-up trade that would show other players that everyone has a role and either perform up to expectation, or get moved. Given an opportunity to prove to your team that their financial and time investment in you as their big game equalizer was a smart move, and you whiff at the chance. A total 'Get it done or we will find someone else who will' message.

trading thornton wasn't a message. it was a functional trade to change leadership. i may be wrong, but weren't there some financial implications as well?

The three guys they picked up in the trade were Marco Sturm, Brad Stuart and Wayne Primeau as I recall...their collective salaries were more than what Thornton made. So, no, I don't believe finances were involved or else younger, cheaper players would have been acquired.

Pitts wrote:I would say (and agree with the earlier suggestion) that Joe Thornton or Phil Kessel was the most recent example of a guy traded simply to send a message.

seriously?

Well, I remember when Thornton was traded, and I remember exactly the second the Bruins' brass snapped...there was less than a minute left in a game between the Bruins and Devils on November 29, 2005 (nationally televised I believe)...Thornton faced off against John Madden deep in the Boston end, Thornton lost it clean and it went right on the blade of Alexander Mogilny and he blew it right past Andrew Raycroft to win it for New Jersey. At that very second, the Bruins built the team around Patrice Bergeron and gave up on Joe Thornton. They didn't care much for Thornton's on-ice play in the playoffs and his off-ice regiment wasn't exactly the stuff captains were made of...

Is that a message? I don't know exactly. I'm not even sure exactly what that means. But that's what went down.

That scenario is a perfect example of a shake-up trade that would show other players that everyone has a role and either perform up to expectation, or get moved. Given an opportunity to prove to your team that their financial and time investment in you as their big game equalizer was a smart move, and you whiff at the chance. A total 'Get it done or we will find someone else who will' message.

Yeah, if you want to shake your team up, trading Thornton would do it. Trading Tyler Kennedy, not so much

Malkamaniac wrote:On a scale of 1-10. If TK was actually traded, I think you and Shmenguin would register a 7.8 on the upset scale.

i don't think i'd be that upset. contrary to what some people think, trades always happen for a real reason. i can't think of a realistic scenario where trading kennedy would be some sort of injustice. even if it's something where they NEED to cut some salary so they can afford paul stinkin' martin - i still understand where they're coming from.

plus i'm a fan of his n'all, but i get really jammed up about kennedy because the arguments that go against him are often completely devoid of reason. lack of reasoning drives me bonkers. so him being traded would add sanity to my life.

Malkamaniac wrote:On a scale of 1-10. If TK was actually traded, I think you and Shmenguin would register a 7.8 on the upset scale.

i don't think i'd be that upset. contrary to what some people think, trades always happen for a real reason. i can't think of a realistic scenario where trading kennedy would be some sort of injustice. even if it's something where they NEED to cut some salary so they can afford paul stinkin' martin - i still understand where they're coming from.

plus i'm a fan of his n'all, but i get really jammed up about kennedy because the arguments that go against him are often completely devoid of reason. lack of reasoning drives me bonkers. so him being traded would add sanity to my life.

Malkamaniac wrote:On a scale of 1-10. If TK was actually traded, I think you and Shmenguin would register a 7.8 on the upset scale.

i don't think i'd be that upset. contrary to what some people think, trades always happen for a real reason. i can't think of a realistic scenario where trading kennedy would be some sort of injustice. even if it's something where they NEED to cut some salary so they can afford paul stinkin' martin - i still understand where they're coming from.

plus i'm a fan of his n'all, but i get really jammed up about kennedy because the arguments that go against him are often completely devoid of reason. lack of reasoning drives me bonkers. so him being traded would add sanity to my life.

Until I start hating on the next target.

at least you weren't saying that richard park was a better option to play with sid when he came back. you haven't called him "soft" either because of some "insider info" you think you have from the club. and you also didn't say that his points at the end of the year shouldn't count the same because he was playing with sid - even though sid had nothing to do with most of his output.

The Pens can't really offer him anything unless he just happens to like the organization. It's not like we can assure him of top line minutes or anything...I don't know what Justin Schultz wants though...